Pan, I read this, along with several of the subsequent responses. I certainly feel for r0beph and others who have chronic health conditions and face the incredibly convoluted system as it stands now. I don't think any with half a brain doesn't recognize there are valid arguments in favor of doing something. The question remains to be exactly WHAT.
Proponents of HCR say doing something is better than nothing. Opponents saying doing anything could be worse than doing nothing: where the government is concerned, their track record proves that out.
Again and again, I keep hearing the same things - that there is lack of affordable insurance coverage, that pre-existing conditions are too often exclusionary, that there is lack of portability in existing coverage, that there is lack of choice in scope of coverage, etc. That is, now that the main focus has officially switched from Health Care Reform to Health INSURANCE reform.
So the main problems are NOT within the health care system, per new emphasis from PBO and the Washington cadre. If that is the case, why doesn't PBO and Congress simply focus on the several most critical issues, identify and define them, and review what can be done to fix it? WITHOUT a massive overhaul and nationalization that may be the living epitome of the cure being worse than the cause?
For example, the government claims a primary goal of their involvement is to increase competition. In what ways can the government increase competition in the private sector insurance industry to meet that goal, without become a competitive player? By lowering barriers for interstate competition for business.
Another: In what way can the government increase portability and provide more choice in health insurance, again without becoming a part of the structure? By increasing availability of group plans outside of individual employers or workers groups, allowing small business insurance consortiums, even individuals to buy into group plans through their banks or credit unions, as they can now for auto, mortgage and life insurance. By increasing MSA's, and eliminating penalties for annual roll-overs.
An immediate thing they could do? Allow a straight up tax reduction for your medical expenses. Period. No minimum to meet, just a straight, across the board deduction for every dollar you spend.
I know these are simplistic. But why do we accept the garbage that a viable solution can not be simplistic? Why do we accept that it can only be achieved through nothing less than a high-stakes gamble that the government can not only help, but can solve through bureaucracy the most personally meaningful part of Americans' lives?
